RETURN OF GOODS/Court Claim Duncton/Moneybarn.....PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!

[Peterbard]

Thank you for your advice Sailingman. The Agreement was taken out April of last year and the last time I made a payment was at the end of September last year.

 

I managed to get hold of a scanner and have uploaded scans of the Agreement and the Default notice and termination they claim to have sent me. 42 Man I'm not sure if the default notice is compliant.

 

One thing I have noticed whilst scanning is that the agreement does not contain the registration mark of the vehicle in question. The space where it should be is left blank. It does state the Chassis number

 

On the Termination notice when referring to “Goods” its states the registration mark and the make of the vehicle next to it. The particulars of claim and every other document refers to the goods in question via the registration mark.

 

I don’t know how significant this may be?

 

The Agreement (3 Pages)

 

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/236/dagreementpg1.jpg

 

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6095/dagreementpg2.jpg

 

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2573/dagreementpg3.jpg

 

 

The Default Notice (2 Pages)

 

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5310/ddefaultnotice.jpg

 

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1946/ddefaultnoticepg2.jpg

 

 

The Termination Notice (1 Page)

 

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8638/dterminationnotice.jpg

 

 

 

To view the gallery of all documents click here

 

ImageShack® - Gallery

 

Hi

 

I need to see the full details of fees and charges on the agrement in order to verify its enforceablity regarding total charge for credot.

 

Regards

Petr

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Unfortunately this is a pre april 2007 agreement so you cannot go for automatic unenforceability.

 

This is unfortunate because the payments are misstated and they are a prescribed term.

 

The agreement should read deposit 3183

 

first payment 225

 

47 payments 447.88

 

This then agrees with the APR

if the first payment was has they have stated then it would be a nonsence.

 

I don't know why the gap with the last payment it makes no differnce as far as i can see unless there was an option fee payable on the last day and that should be on the agreement so woul dyu let me kknow if this is the case.

 

THe misstated payments are still a breach of the act and would make the agreement enforceable only by order of the court,the court may even consider that it serious enough to warrent some ammendment of your agreement but this is as i say up to the court.

 

Howevwer if you are after making ourself a little time in order to get another plan together .

I should draft them a letter saying that the agreement is flawed in that the payments schedule does not correspond with the stated APR.

 

They will no doubt come back to you and tell you that it was your deposit + fee but all you have to say is that it does not say that on the agreement i signed it says it was the first installment and the cca 1974 says that these are prescribed terms and must be correct.

Best regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter

 

Forgive me, I am very new to all this so although I get the general idea of what your saying, I am still slightly confused.

 

I took out the agreement in April 2008. Why is it classed as a "pre April 2007 agreement"?

 

If I am mistaken and it is pre april 2007, because the payments are misstated, the agreement is still in breach of the act. As it is pre 2007, what must I do to claim that the agreement not enforceable? Do I just state this in my defence?

 

Also they say they terminated the agreement in December 2008. I am claiming that they did not do this lawfully as the default notice they claim to have sent me is not compliant. Can the court really order the ammendment of an agreement that they themselves said they terminated?

 

Also what is a "time order"?

 

Sorry I'm just a little confused.

 

Thanks

 

Sorry i meant post 07 was typing quicker thatn my brain was working. (not difficult)

 

The section of the 1974 act that was used for making an agreement that is improperly executed unenforceable(secrion 127(3-5)) was revoked by the 2006 consumer credit act.

This took effect on the 6th of April 2007 and effected all agreements dated after this.

The rest of the reply is OK though.

 

I didn;t mention a time order did i?

 

Sorry for the typo

Regards

Petr

Edited April 5, 2009 by Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

Hi

yes i have just whizzed through this thread and yes the court does have the power to ammend your agreement if it was proved to be improperly executed unrder 127(1)2.

The the prescribed terms are listed in the 1984/1553 agreement regulations in schedule 6.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Hi would be intersting in seeing the case law that refuses to accept inan incorrectly formated agreement could you give me the reference

 

Manay thanks in anticipation

PeterPeter

[Peterbard]

erm, you could send the claimant a CPR 18 request to proove that the £25 was a general pre-estimate of their costs.

 

Thanks,

H

 

Hi

wouldnt that defeat the object of claimng they were penalty charges an dunlawful under the utccs.

Pette

[Peterbard]

Its schedule 2 regulation 2(2) Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

 

that should be the one!!!

 

HI

NO you said case law that is the DTN regs seen them

 

I can show you regs tht say if the word credit is the wrong colour but i doubt if a court would rule agains enforcing it.

 

Peter

 

Petr

[Peterbard]

HI

No don't think ther is in fact just lately it has been difficult gatting courts to admoit that ones with incorrect term are not acceptabel or am i just coming across a lot of particularily stupid DJs.

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

From what i remember of your agreement

the first installment quoted was for the amount of the deposit +the fee.

The first payment being on the collection of the goods.

This is incorrect as the repayments should be repayng the loan and the deposit you paid is not part of the loan.

So the first payment should have been 225 which was the fee.

THe last payment again if i remember right was "0" that is what i found confusing because it would meen that the agreement was still active 1 month after the repayment period had finished i could see no reason for this.

Any way the upshot is no you have not paid to much and if the agreement was laid out in the way i outlined all the figures in it would be correct, but it wasn't and the repayments are a prescribed term that cannot be incorrect in any way if the agreement is to be correctly executed.

 

I think the exerpt you quoted was from the 1983 regs and was reffering to running account credt (credit cards).

the prescribed term for fixed sum credit is total credit

 

Regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Thanks Peter, I completely understand now!!! I need to strap down now and find some case law references to use.

 

Hi

well there is all the usual sispects

wilson, hustanger (sorry i have a dislexic keyboard) etc they are all in the case law section or on the web.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

 

just while i remember the tems of repayment say 48 months yet it isn't is it it is 47 months, i think i said earlier that this makes no difference to the APR but i was wrong,the way they lay it out confuses you .If you do the calculation with the last payment atr 0 then it makes no difference, but what they are saying is that the are giving you 48 months to repay your loan and in fact they are not. If this were the case the repayments would have to be differnt in order to maintain the same APR.

At best this could be said to be very confusing to a buyer and at worst a form of cleaverly missrepresenting the worth of the bargain (APR)

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

No it is another string to your bow.

The repayment details are not only incorrect in form but the also give you a fals sence of the worth of the "credit bargain" in that the APR was not a reflection af a loan of ** over 48 months but on a shorter perid. So in other words you were not getting as good a deal as you were lead to believe this would be a breach of section 127(1) in that you were predudiced in your purchasing decision by an incorrect statment on the agreement.

 

You see since we lost the automatic unenforceability provision of section 127(3) we have to find methods of proving that the creditors mistakes will predudice or restrict our rights under the act and this does.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

Yes it is a related point it all ties in with the improper execution of the agreement. One of your points was the misstated repayments this is a drect consequence of that.

 

Peter